The Game Development
Process
Game Design
Outline
• Gameplay
• Game Balance
Approaching Game Design
•
•
•
Used to be thought that could not teach game
design … more of an art
– But you can teach art! (AR1100 + …)
Even to art, there are technical disciplines such as
in music, film, poetry
So, consider computer game design as an art form
 Game design practices can be taught
Chapter 2.2, Introduction to Game Development
Game Theory
•
Some designers approach Game Theory thinking it
will help design games
– Rather, it is a theory about games are played
•
Game theory is …
•
Game theory assumes rational players
– Branch of economics
– Systems governed by rules
– Mathematically analyzed to determine payoffs of
various end points.
– Abstract model players – not real people
• Always try to maximize their potential utility
• Solve problems using pure logic
• Always fully aware of the state of the game
Chapter 2.2, Introduction to Game Development
Gameplay
•
Gameplay (given the definition of game theory)
•
Includes
•
•
– Collective strategies to reach end points of game theory
– Specific to game activities
– “What the player does”
– Utility - A measure of desire associated with an outcome
– Payoffs - The utility value for a given outcome
– Preference - The bias of players towards utility
Note, gameplay is not everything
– Choice of car in GTA is not always about payoff, but about
what is fun
– Software doesn’t have to have gameplay to be entertaining
… consider SimCity
No one expects gameplay in movies or plays
– Who says: “Hey, where is the gameplay in Hamlet?”
– Rule 1: It should be fun (entertainment)
– Rule 2: It should be interactive (make use of computer, else
perhaps use film)
– Rule 3: It can have gameplay (but that is a choice)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
•
Gameplay Example (1 of 2)
Adventure game: Knight and Priest
During combat
– Knight in front with sword
– Priest casts spells (assume all cost the same)
• E-bolts (do damage equal to sword)
• Band-aids (heal equal to sword)
Fighting a single opponent with sword
Which spell should Priest cast?
– Ask: against opponent with 6 arms (e-bolts)
– Ask: against many opponents with weak attacks (bandaids)
 Can always decide which is better
• Not so interesting
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Gameplay Example (2 of 2)
• Now, suppose…
– Band-aids still affect single target but ebolts have an area affect
– E-bolts do less damage, but armor doesn’t
make a difference
• Now, which spell should Priest cast?
– Answer isn’t as easy. Interesting choices.
Good gameplay.
“A game is a series of interesting choices.”
- Sid Meier (Pirates, Civilization…)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Implementing Gameplay (1 of 3)
• Choice
– A question asked of the player
• Outcome
– The end result of a given choice
• Possibility space
– Represents the set of possible events
– A “landscape” of choice and outcome
Chapter 2.2, Introduction to Game Development
•
•
•
Implementing Gameplay (2 of 3)
Choices must be non-trivial, with upside and
downside
– If only upside, AI should take care of it
– If only downside, no-one will ever use it
Note, this is only regarding Game Theory
– Ex: Could have ray gun that plays music. “Cool”, but
soon “gimme the BFG”
– Ex: Nintendo’s Smash Bro’s has “Taunt” … ask: what
for?
– Ask: other examples from popular games?
Gameplay value when upside and downside and
payoff depends upon other factors
– Ex: Rohan horsemen, but what if other player
recruits pikemen?
– Ex: Bazooka, but what if other player gets out of
tank?
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
Implementing Gameplay (3 of 3)
Should be series of interesting choices
• Ex: Use of health potion now may depend upon
•
•
•
•
whether have net for capturing more fairies
Having net may depend upon whether needed space
for more arrows for bow
Needing arrows may depend upon whether killed all
flying zombie bats yet
Hence, well designed game should require strategy
Game must display complexity
– But doesn’t mean it must be complex!
• Don’t make too many rules. Less if more.
• Real world example: termites place one piece of mud.
Results in hive, with cooling vents, etc.
– Emergence from interaction of rules
• Ex: In Populous, Priests convert, but not if already in
•
combat. By design? Maybe, but non-intuitive result.
Ask: examples from popular games?
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
The Dominant Strategy Problem
•
•
•
Articles with “10 killer tactics” or “ultimate
weapon”
– Ask: what are these doing?
 Taking advantage of flaws in the game design!
Should never have a option not worth using
– Dominated strategy
Should never have an option that is so good, it is
never worth doing anything else
– Dominant strategy
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
Near Dominance
Worth looking for near dominance, too
– Near-dominated – useful only very narrow
circumstance
– Near-dominant – used most of the time
Ex: stun gun only useful against raptors, so only
useful on raptor level (near dominated)
– Do I want it used more often?
– How much effort on this feature?
– Should I put in lots of special effects?
Ex: flurry of blows most useful attack (near
dominant) by Monk in D&D
– Should we spend extra time for effects?
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Avoid Trivial Choices (1 of 2)
•
•
Horsemen  Archers  Pikemen
– Transitive, not so interesting
Horsemen  Archers  Pikemen  Horsemen
(picture)
– Ask: what game does this look like? (rock-paperscissors)
– Intransitive, more interesting
– Ex: from LOTR Battle for Middle Earth
• Horsemen fast, get to archers quickly with lances
• Pikemen spears hurt horsemen bad
• Pikemen slow, so archers wail on them from afar
(Will look at game balance in depth, next topic)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Avoid Trivial Choices (2 of 2)
•
A beats B, B beats C, C beats A (could hardwire)
•
Ask: Which is better?
•
– But could also have how much better
1) Single horseman can beat any number of archers:
Horseman  Archers ()
2) Single horseman barely beat an archer:
Horseman  Archers (1.1)
– Trick question! Both are bad
Case 1) equal number of each, all others lose
Case 2) doesn’t matter which you choose (turns to RPS)
Don’t want to hardwire. Sometimes A way better
than B, sometimes a bit better, sometimes worse
– The answer should depend upon the game situation,
weather, terrain, time … also what opponent is doing
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Environment + Rules = Gameplay
•
•
•
•
•
•
Battle of Hastings, 1066 A.D.
King Harold tired, mostly infantry
Duke William more archers, cavalry
http://www.battle1066.com/
– Archers beat slower infantry  game over?
Not quite … Harold on hill (arrows less effective)
and defensive mode
– Archers tire, run out of arrows  game over?
Not quite … William also smart, cavalry approach, but
retreat. Infantry break ranks since they are
frustrated, charge
– Arrows now shred Infantry  Harold loses, game over
Point: ways to change balance between different
troop types. “A good commander isn’t the one with the best
army; he is the one who knows how to use it best”
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Ensuring Interesting Choices (1 of 2)
• Ex: Elite (early ’80s, ask: who played?)
– Accumulate wealth by trading
– When 1000 credits, trade lazer for better
lazer and have 400 left over for trading.
No brainer. Always a win.
– What if could buy lazer with 600? Then no
credits left over. Decision is tougher.
• Point: keep difficult choices in hands of
•
player
Ask: other examples?
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Ensuring Interesting Choices (2 of 2)
• Interesting choices require good judgment
on the part of the player
– Correct choice must vary with circumstances
• Aim as designer, ensure circumstances don’t
•
stagnate and have only one right way to win
No method for finding “best” choices
– That’s where creativity comes in (art)
• Still, some tips …
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Toolbox of Interesting Choices
• Strategic versus Tactical
• Supporting Investments
• Versatility
• Compensating Factors
• Impermanence
• Shadow Costs
• Synergies
Strategic versus Tactical (1 of 3)
• Strategic choices affect course of game
over medium or long term
– Tactical choices apply right now
– Ex: build archers or swordsmen (strategic)
– Ex: send archers or swordsmen to defend
against invading force (tactical)
• Strategic choices have effect on tactical
choices later
– Ex: if don’t build archers, can’t use
tactically later
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Strategic versus Tactical (2 of 3)
• Ex: StarCraft
– Strategic choice: 1) upgrade range of
marines, 2) upgrade damage, or 3) research
faster fire
– Which to choose?
• If armored foes, Protoss Zealot, more
damage
• If fast foes, Zerglings, maybe faster fire
– Other factors: number of marines, terrain,
on offense or defense
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Strategic versus Tactical (3 of 3)
• Ex: Warzone 2100 (ask: who played?)
– Build factories to spawn war machines
– If build in level, then spawn quickly but
factory only used for that level
– If build at base, spawn slowly (have to ship to
front lines) but factory can be used in
subsequent levels
• Lesson: Good gameplay should have different
choices leading to different kinds of payoff
– Reduces the risk of trivial choices
– Increase scope for good judgment
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Supporting Investments
•
•
Often game has primary goal (ex: beat enemy) but
secondary goals (ex: build farms for resources)
Some expenditures directly impact primary goal
(ex: hire soldier), while others indirect (ex: build
farm) called supporting investments
Primary goals are “one-removed”
•
Supporting goals are “two-removed”
•
•
– Ex: improve weapons, build extra barracks
– Ex: build smithy can then improve weapons
– Ex: research construction lets you build smithy and
build barracks (two and three removed)
• Most interesting since strategic
Payoff will depend upon what opponents do
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Versatility (1 of 2)
•
For balance, a guideline is to ask what is best and
worst about choices:
1) This move does most damage, but slowest
2) This move is fastest, but makes defenseless
3) This move best defense, but little damage
•
•
Most should be best in some way
With versatility, a 4th choice:
•
Versatile good for
4) This neither best nor worst, but most versatile
– beginners
– flexibility (against unpredictable or expert
opponent)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Versatility (2 of 2)
• Ex: beam can mine asteroids and shoot
enemies
– Versatility makes it good choice
• Speed is common way for versatility
– Don’t make fast units best at something
else
• If a versatile unit is also cheapest and
most powerful  no interesting choice
– (See “Compensating Factors”, next)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
•
Compensating Factors
Consider strategy game where all units impeded by
some terrain
– Ships can’t go on land, tanks can’t cross water, camel
riders only in dessert
Assume flying unit that can go anywhere (Ask: how
to balance?)
1) Make slow
2) Make weak, easily destroyed
3) Make low surveillance range (unrealistic)
4) Make expensive
Note, last choice common but uninteresting since
doesn’t change tactical use
Choice should be clear to player. Don’t make a
gamble before they know.
– Ex: pick troops (cold weather) then find in jungle
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Impermanence (1 of 2)
•
•
Some permanent (ex: you get to treasure first),
others not (ex: I got storage near mine, but you
can grab it off me)
Really, another kind of compensating factor
•
Can be used for interesting choices
•
– i.e. – impermanence can compensate for something
being really good
– used since such a common, and valuable techinque
– Ex: choice of medium armor for rest of game or
invulnerable for 30 seconds?
Advantage (or disadvantages) can be impermanent
in number of ways:
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Impermanence (2 of 2)
•
Examples (mostly from Magic the Gathering –
Battlegrounds)
– Can be destroyed (enchantments, ex: gratuitous
violence makes units tough, but can be destroyed)
– Can be stolen or converted (ex: threaten steals or
converts enemy for short time)
– Can be applied to something you don’t always have
(ex: goblin king gives bonus to goblins, but must
have goblins)
– Certain number of uses (ex: three grenades, but
grenade spamming)
– Last for some time (wears off, ex: Mario
invulnerable star)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Shadow Costs (1 of 2)
• In a game, continually presented with costs
and trade-offs. But not all direct.
– Ex: soldiers for gold, but need armory first
for weapons and barracks for soldiers
– Called shadow costs for supporting
investments
– And shadow costs can vary, adding subtlety
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
Shadow Costs (2 of 2)
Ex: Age of Mythology has wood and food. Food is
inexhaustible, wood is finite
– Charioteer
• Costs 60 wood, 40 food and 40 seconds to spawn
• Shadow costs vary over game
•
– Early on, food and wood expensive, spawn doesn’t
matter (since make few)
– Mid-game, much food and wood, spawn makes it
harder to pump out new units
– End-game, no wood, spawn is priceless
Use variability to add subtlety to game. Vary
environment and vary shadow costs (ex: more trees
to vary cost of wood)
– Challenge for level designer
– Expert players will appreciate
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Synergies (1 of 2)
Synergies are interaction between different elements
of player’s strategies (note, terms may be different than ch 2.2)
•
Positive Feedback
– Economies of Scale –
the more of one type,
the better (ex: wizards
draw strength from
each other)
– Economies of Scope –
the more of a set, the
better, or advantage of
combined arms (ex:
trident and net,
infantry and tanks)
•
Negative Feedback
– Diseconomies of scale –
first is most useful,
others have less
benefit (ex: diminishing
returns from more
peasants entering a
mine since get in each
other’s way)
– Diseconomies of scope –
(ex: mixed troops go
only as fast as slowest)
Synergies (2 of 2)
•
•
•
Ideally, all go together at once, but can emphasize
– Ex: Chess is a game of positive feedback
– Small advantage early on, exploited to crushing
advantage
Game of negative feedback needs other ways to
keep interesting
– Ex: trench combat makes a “catch-up” factor, or as
get far from base, supply long grows, game lasts a
long time
– Ex: Super NES NBA Jam – catch up setting as an
equalizer
Be aware of each
Final Word on Gameplay
• Need to make sure choices interact
– Ex: no fun winning just because out-optimize
guy on resource production
– Ex: no fun if winning just because know
right thing to do else lose  no game, just
forgone conclusion
• Want choices to interact with choices of
opponent, want it to depend
Review: Use Tools from Toolbox of
Interesting Choices
• Strategic versus Tactical
• Supporting Investments
• Versatility
• Compensating Factors
• Impermanence
• Shadow Costs
• Synergies
•
Groupwork:
– Use 1-2 in a game about graduating from college.
Discuss.
Interactivity versus Gameplay
•
•
•
•
Interactivity is the heart and soul of entertainment
software
Ex: Kick the soccer ball around, practice headers, bicycle
kicks, etc. (interactivity, like soccer)
– Play a game of soccer on the pitch (interactivity +
gameplay)
– Can you have gameplay without interactivity? Maybe.
But even so, gameplay without interactivity could be fun
(ie- television), but would start wondering if time is
better spent doing something else
Gameplay is important because it allows you to take the
experience someplace
Interactivity is more important that gameplay
– Interactivity without gameplay can be fun
• Ex: Black and White, Sims
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Kinds of Interactivity (1 of 2)
•
•
Can interact in many ways – game designers
sometimes restrict themselves to facts
– Ex: if you hit w/BFG, do 50 points damage
Think broadly. Player could potentially:
1) Directly control characters (Ex: move Laura Croft)
2) Affect world (Ex: make Stronghold guys “insane”)
3) Influence characters actions at one remove (Ex:
give weapons, like Zeus to a hero)
4) Influence at two removes (Ex: provide inspiration,
like a Muse)
5) Decide who to follow, rather than what to follow
(Ex: observer mode)
6) Select what parts are interesting and give more
time to that (Ex: like a child with a bedtime story,
Saahil likes the hero build up and powers most)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Kinds of Interactivity (2 of 2)
•
•
(Ask: others?)
In the above list, how many are done?
•
But many not done:
– 1 most everything, 2 for changing difficulty
– Why can’t you say to computer opponent:
• “Hey, let’s build up a big army before we fight” or
• “Don’t attack me since I’m having fun building”
•
– Or, why can’t you switch sides in a battle?
Avoid making mutant versions of films, novels or
even board games
– Use imagination for interactivity
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
Concentrate on “Why” not just “What”
Doesn’t have to be about what happens
– Ex: ER. Noah Wylie is avatar. With a sick patient – does
he … follow rules, give experimental drug, play basketball?
– But … not only way to be interactive. Instead, follow Noah,
switch to patient, go to other Dr., back to Noah (learn
about characters, the “Why”)
Drama unfolds because of understanding of
characters
– True in non-interactive drama, so true in games, too
•
– Ex: D&D dungeon, series of rooms w/monsters. Much
richer if “why” behind scenes. Why were dwarves
there? Why did they die? How orcs break in?
Goal of entertainment is to make audience care
– Use interactivity as a way to powerful technique to help
this
Core Design
• Brief, since overlaps material in
– IMGD 1000. Critical Studies of Interactive
Media and Games
• Topics
–
–
–
–
What is a Game
Gameplay
Game Balance
Look and Feel
Based on Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
(Overmars + Ch2)
(Ch 3)
(Ch 5)
(Ch 6)
Game Balance - Introduction
•
•
•
Beauty in balanced games
– Like Rolls Royce or Ball Machine in Airport
Game without balance often unsatisfying and
wasted effort (parts not in balance not used, so
wasted effort)
Broadly, game balance includes:
– Player-Player – advantage only in skill (can be luck,
but should be equal to both)
– Player-Gameplay – learning curve matched by reward
– Gameplay-Gameplay – Composite longbow does twice
damage, should cost twice $
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Mini-Outline
• Broadly, game balance includes:
– Player-Player
– Player-Gameplay
– Gameplay-Gameplay
(next)
Player/Player Balance (1 of 2)
•
Players should have “fair” chance of winning
•
Ex: Virtua Fighter (ask: who has played?)
•
– advantage only in skill (can be luck, but should be
equal to both)
– Say, Sarah Bryant beats Lion every time?
– Does that mean unbalanced?
• No, look more closely
Suppose friend said could beat everyone as Sarah
Bryant all the time. Would say “prove it”
– Would only be a problem if beginner as Sarah always
beat expert as Lion
– And if could choose characters? Sarah versus
Sarah?
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Player/Player Balance (2 of 2)
•
•
Allow to arrange victory by skill and judgment
Avoid results mostly as stroke of luck
•
Simplest way is to have symmetry
– Right from the start or magnified as game
progresses (ex: start close to gold mine provides
escalating advantage)
– Same weapons, maneuvers, hit points (sports do
this)
– (But note, not always the most interesting. Want
different moves on fighters, say. More later.)
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Symmetry - Example
•
•
Two heroes square off for duel, poised in kung fu
stance
Hours pass. Days pass.
Breeze comes by, spec of dust in one’s eye
Blinks, frowns then bows
Know result without fight … tiny asymmetry
enough to decide outcome
If breeze or dust decided game, is that ok?
•
Don’t want to decide by factors out of control
•
•
•
•
– No … you’d want your money back!
– Keep symmetric
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Symmetry
• Symmetry is fine in abstract games (ex:
•
•
chess, even basketball)
In realistic games, would be problem (ex:
U.S. versus Iraq, game symmetry would be
bothersome since not realistic)
While easy, kind of an insult
– Ex: LOTR BfME Warg’s same as horses …
but Wargs can bite in book/movie!
• Better is functional symmetry that is not
obvious
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Symmetry in Level Design
•
Can avoid obvious symmetry
– Ex: each player has impassible region on flank
(water or mountain range)
• Knights and soldiers can’t cross
• Later on, advanced units can cross
• Choice of unit depends upon barrier
•
– Mountaineers to storm, ships to cross sea
– Or bluff, and then go up middle
Players can choose asymmetric start location
– Should not be deciding factor (Ex: you choose
downwind port, so you lose – like dust in eye)
– Avoiding making start location critical decision
– Ex: potential mines in many spots, so not critical
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Symmetry in Game Design (1 of 2)
• Make all choices for players functionally
the same
– Ex: Warcraft 2 – humans have griffons and
orcs have dragons; both flying toughies.
• But even slight differences make
interesting
– Ex: Warcraft 2 – orc player’s runes explode,
making use in mountain passes good
• “Just broken” asymmetry easier to manage
than total asymmetry (can compensate)
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Symmetry in Game Design (2 of 2)
•
•
•
Making choices for players different, yet balanced
is tougher
Ex: Starcraft: Protoss, Zergs, Terrans – all very
different (Same with Command and Conquer –
Generals)
– Imagine the hours of playtesting!
– Recommend only for deep pockets
– Starcraft is often a “benchmark” against which to
judge other RTS game balance
Also, if re-creating historical simulation, tradeoff
between fairness and authenticity
– Ex: Conquistadors vs. Aztecs – Aztecs are doomed,
but may be no fun. Certainly not symmetric
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Mini-Outline
• Broadly, game balance includes:
– Player-Player
– Player-Gameplay
– Gameplay-Gameplay
(next)
Player/Gameplay Balance –
Introduction (1 of 4)
• Means remembering that the business is
about interactivity – think about player’s
relationship to the game
– Ex: If had to “tune” the T.V. every time
channel surf, would not do it much
– Likewise, should not struggle for small
reward
• Ex: Baldur’s Gate (ask: who’s played?)
– Attributes are 3-18 (ask: why?), can re-roll
if don’t like. So, re-roll until all 18’s. Ugh.
Test of endurance!
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Player/Gameplay Balance –
Introduction (2 of 4)
• Player/Gameplay balance entails balancing
challenges against player’s improvement
curve
– (Draw picture)
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Player/Gameplay Balance – Introduction
(3 of 4)
•
•
Problem
– Game starts easy (most do), and stays easy too long
• Player quits from boredom
– Game starts easy, then gets suddenly hard (add timing
or requires new skill)
• Player quits from frustration
Ideally, game difficulty adapts to skill of play
(track stats, etc.).
– Ex: (Give a lot of health for newbie, guy that gets
wounded.)
– Great! But a lot of work to build and testing to get
right
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Player/Gameplay Balance – Introduction
(4 of 4)
•
More common, have difficulty settings (player
manually selects)
– Still challenge of making the "Normal" level right.
•
Compromises
•
Getting more difficult
– Could ask player up front some questions (ex: have you
played FPS before?), then recommend setting
– Could have player do tutorial level, then recommend
setting
– Many RPG’s have monsters get tougher with level
• Ex: Diablo 2 does this
• But boring if that is all since will “feel” the same
– Want widening options, too
• Ex: character gets more abilities
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Sub-Outline
• Again, true balance is an art, but three
guidelines that can help
1) Reward the player
2) Let the machine do the work
3) Make a game that you play with, not against
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Reward the Player
•
•
•
•
Player will have to learn. Will make mistakes
(discouraging). Want to offset with reward when
do something right
Ex: Virtua Fighter, takes longer to learn
complicated moves
– Sarah’s backflip. Reward comes from seeing flip
(eye candy) and punch in kidneys (payoff)
Best when expand game options
– Ex: “Now with backflip, I can see new use for
reverse punch”
In general, better to reward player for something
right than punish for something wrong
– Punishment makes players not want to play
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Let the Machine do the Work
•
•
•
•
Interface should show player the world and let him/her
manipulate
Computer is tool to take care of wide-range of tedious tasks
– If tasks are not fun, don’t make player do them
There is a blur of boundary between chore and game feature
– RPG could provide graph so player can manually draw map
as explore … but is that fun?
– Ex: In D&D, can tell D.M. “we go back to the dungeon
entrance”. Easy, fun. What if a game makes player walk
back over map that has been seen? Boring, no fun.
– Ex: Myst provided lightning bolt move to avoid tedium
– (Ask: other examples?)
Also, if game option is no-brainer, consider AI taking care of
it
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
Make a Game that you Play With,
Not Against
Consider great story, graphics, immersion but
only progress by trial and error … is this fun?
Ex: crossbowman guards exit
1.
Run up and attack. He’s too fast. Back to save
point (more on save points next).
2. Drink potion. Sneak up. He shoots you. Back to
save.
3. Drop bottle as distraction. He comes looking.
Shoots you. Back to save.
4. Drink potion. Drop bottle. He walks by you. You
escape!
– Lazy design!
Should succeed by skill and judgment, not trial
and error
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
Specific Example The Save Game Problem (1 of 2)
Designer talking about RPG
– Designer: “I’ve got a great trap!” … platform goes
down to room. Player thinks treasure but really
flame throwers. Player is toast!
– Tester: “What if player jumps off?”
– D: (thinks it’s a loophole) … “Ok, teleport in then
toast”
– T: “What is the solution?”
– D: “There isn’t one.” (surprised) “It’s a killer trap.
It will be fun.”
– T: “So, there’s no clue for player? Charred remains
on platform or something?”
– D: “No. That’s what the ‘Save’ feature is for.”
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
Specific Example The Save Game Problem (2 of 2)
Should be used only so players can go back to their
Real Lives in between games
– Or maybe to allow player to fully see folly of
actions, for exploratory and dabbling
Don’t design game around need to save
– Has become norm for many games, but too bad
– Ex: murderous level can only get by trying all
combat options
Beginner player should be able to reason and come
up with answer
– Challenges get tougher (more sophisticated
reasoning) as player and game progress, so appeals
to more advanced player
– But not trial and error
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Mini-Outline
• Broadly, game balance includes:
– Player-Player
– Player-Gameplay
– Gameplay-Gameplay
(next)
Gameplay/Gameplay Balance Introduction
• Consider Warcraft 2, with dozens of units.
Nearly perfectly balanced.
– No unit costs so much don’t want
– No unit too weak can do without
• Either got lucky or lots of play testing
•
(probably the latter)
Strong RPS relationship – have to play all
units, none are dispensable
•
•
Gameplay/Gameplay Balance Introduction
Challenges when balancing aspects of gameplay?
– Want variety of interesting choices, rather than
single, dominant choice
– Best choices depend upon choices of other players
(or on AI)
– As a designer, not easy to see how frequently
different choices will be worth making, but need to
know to balance game
Sounds like catch-22? Can use simple concepts to
make first guess
– Then lots of play testing to fine tune! 
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Game Balance
•
•
•
Establish the value of each game choice
For game balance, each choice must
– not be reducible to simple value (else easy to
determine if dominates or dominated)
or
– factors must even out
Example where evens out: Pirate game
– Dreadnoughts > Galleons > Brigantines
– All have identical functions
– If Dreadnoughts 2x more power, then (for
balance) Galleons should take ½ time to spawn
so will have 2 Galleons for each Dreadnought
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Game Balance
•
Example where doesn’t even out: Starcraft
•
Another example, in the Pirate game
– Mutalisks fly over any terrain, but cannot fight
other fliers
– Wraiths are not as tough, but can attack other
fliers
– Observers can see enemy, but not fight
 There is no expression for values since different
things!
– Instead of spawn rate, compensate by making
Dreadnoughts slowest, Brigantines fastest
 Getting more interesting gameplay, but what about
balance?
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Game Balance
•
•
Two levels to balancing: component and attribute
– Component balance deals with relative values
• Ex: how much does it “cost” relative to others?
– Attribute involves interaction of abilities
•
Ex: how important is speed relative to damage?
Envision as a set, where relative values based on one
component only:
– Speed: Brigantines > Galleons > Dreadnoughts
– Tuffness: Dreadnoughts > Galleons > Brigantines
– Range: .
•
•
Use weights to combine to get average set combining all
factors based on perceived importance
Then, adjust component values so all units are useful
•
Often need tools so level designers can balance
– How to adjust? Lots of play testing!
– Ex: new_tank2.gm6
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
Component versus Attribute
Balance
Mnemonic to remember:
– Component choices are about artifacts
• Ex: “Hmm. Should I use the ion cannon or laser?”
• Depends upon the tactical task
– Attribute choices are more abstract regarding use:
•
•
• Ex: “I should sneak past troll or take extra health”
• Depends upon the strategy
Attribute balance is harder (set of all problems)
But if can get approximate picture of better
strategies, can tweak component costs to get
game balance
(Next, component balance)
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Intransitive Game Mechanics (1 of 5)
Rock
•
•
•
Paper
Scissors
Rock
0
-1
+1
Paper
+1
0
-1
Scissors
-1
+1
0
Payoff, match your choice with opponent
Suppose I always picked rock. Then opponent would notice
and pick paper. Then I would start to always pick scissors,
then…
– spiral to center of triangle where all options equal
– only break even, like thermodynamics
Note, too, that player must chose all. No option that can do
without (or opponent will exploit). It is balanced.
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Intransitive Game Mechanics (2 of 5)
• Suppose scissors costs most, rock costs
least
– May use rock more often, scissors less
– But wait, that would mean paper less useful,
too… what is optimum choice now?
• Suppose scissors costs 3 ki, paper costs 2
ki, rock costs 1 ki and hit does 5 ki damage
Rock
Paper
Scissors
Rock
0
-4
+7
Paper
+4
0
-4
Scissors
-7
+4
0
Ex: I choose scissors, you choose rock. Ki diff is –2.
Plus damage is –5, so –7 total.
Intransitive Game Mechanics (3 of 5)
•
Say payoff is R, P, S and frequency r, p, s
•
Net payoff R is (0 x r) + (-4 x p) + (7 x s)
•
•
– Want to know how often used (r, p, s)
1) R = -4p + 7s
2) P = 4r – 4s
3) S = -7r + 4p
Sum must be zero (zero sum game, whatever one
player gains other loses. Both cannot have net
gain.)
– R+P+S=0
All net costs must be equal else would favor
(remember, triangle example)
– R=P=S
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Intransitive Game Mechanics (4 of 5)
•
Solve: (3 equations in 3 unknowns)
– (eq1) -4p + 7s = 4r – 4s (eq2)
11s = 4r + 4p  s = (4r+4p) / 11
– (eq2) 0 = 4r – 4(4r+4p)/11
0 = 44r – 16r - 16p
0 = 28r - 16p  p = (7/4)r
– (eq3) 0 = -4(7/4)r + 7s
•
0 = 7r + 7s
r=s
Ratio  r:p:s = 1 : 1.75 : 1
– Rock and Scissors used 27%, Paper about 46%
– Probably not what expected. Often result … if one
option more expensive, others are most affected
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Intransitive Game Mechanics (5 of 5)
•
•
Enhance to more choices.
– Ex: could do combination moves.
• Rock + Scissors + Scissors = Garden Shears
• Could be countered with Paper Weight
• Strategy becomes complicated
Can use technique to:
– Adjust costs to fit envisioned game play
• Ex: if it turns out “too many” tanks relative to infantry
•
•
– Justify spending more artistic assets
Fine, all is balanced. Players must avoid predictability
because clever opponent will exploit.
– But that is barely above where have only 1 choice!
To balance so interesting, must have attribute factors that
interact (remember, the Battle of Hastings)
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
•
Other Intransitive Relationships
Can extend RPS? Sure (otherwise not useful)
More than 3 options  Table 5.3 and Case Study
5.5
Less regular are 4 options  Table 5.4
Figure 5.7 discusses another 4-way relationship
– Infantry dominated
– But, looking further, infantry has attribute that
only one that doesn’t have to move
• Can hold territory! (In game that needs that)
– Ex: In AoE, could “teleport” supplies by building
base. Didn’t need to hold territory. Infantry
useless. Even making them cost less doesn’t
(expansion pack). Still great game, but didn’t need.
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
Combinatorial Explosions
How many components should there be to make
interesting?
– Too few? Then becomes trivial (Ex: in Hastings, only
way to change power base is to put infantry on hill)
– Too many? Then too hard to have skilled play
Rule of thumb: N factors that could modify core
mechanics, and each boolean (hill or not, rain or
not …)  2N possible combinations … explodes
rapidly (remember, N=24 gives about 16 million
combinations)
– Err on the side of caution
“In Populous (EA god-game), should have lots of characters or
half-dozen? Noticed would be easier to understand game
experience with few, versatile units rather than many
specific ones.”
Richard Leinfellner (executive in charge of Bullfrog)
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Design Scalability
•
•
•
•
Intransitive designs are inflexible
– If have balanced relationship and remove one, will
have dominated strategy
– Ex: RPS and remove R … always choose S!
If project lead says behind schedule, so don’t
include 5th orc type
 Elegant design falls like a house of cards!
But is relatively easy to add components
– Doesn’t have to be symmetrical, can be redundant or
useful in only a few cases
• Ex: scout, or special spell
Lesson, if you are going to scale, scale up not down
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
A Game Balance Checklist (1 of 3)
• Player-Player
– Ensures game is fair
– Especially important for multiplayer games
– Symmetry works for this, but asymmetry
may be needed or more appealing (try “just
broken”)
– Make sure any asymmetry doesn’t magnify
imbalance as game progresses
• Golden rule: a player should never be put in
an unwinnable situation through no fault of
their own
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
A Game Balance Checklist (2 of 3)
•
•
Player-Gameplay
–
–
–
–
Ensures player never becomes frustrated.
Continually brings player back for more.
Interface should not present obstacles.
Small rewards are needed to guide player
• Ex: Fancy animation or new powers
– Best rewards widen options
Golden rule: The game should be fun to learn as
well as to play, and it should be more fun the more
you master it
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
A Game Balance Checklist (3 of 3)
• Gameplay-Gameplay –
– Ensures no element redundant or useless
– Can do briefly by making factor table for each
attribute (Ex: fire, range …)
• Make sure each best at something
•
– RPS ensures each component dynamically best
rather than statically so
– Oblige player to alter tactics
– Don’t have to have every component equally useful
– But cost, availability and ease of use should reflect
value
– Get right through playtesting
Golden rule: all options in game must be worth
using sometime, net cost of each option must be on
par with payoff
Based on Chapter 5, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Bit Bucket
Notes
• The rest of the topics are to be covered on
•
students own time
Or, possibly in class, as time allows
Look and Feel
• Create a sense of alternate reality –
Immersion
• Ambience
• Interface
• Storytelling
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Ambience
•
•
•
•
Everything that contributes to innate look and
feel of game
– Not just spiffy graphics - GLFOPS and trilinear
filtering
– Rather, how graphics are used
Two fighters on bare stage. Fine. How about
dirty street, realistic crowd hooting and hollering.
Dark skies…
– Ex: “Fiery hell” when battling boss in Battlegrounds
Ambience is about providing background for story
Broadly – Sound, Vision, Touch
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Sound
•
•
•
•
•
Wistful guitar in Diablo
Ethnic rhythms in AoE
Stirring call to arms in Warcraft
Whimsical in Q’Bicles
Best does ambience plus gameplay
– Ex: Thief
• “Come out taffer”, looking for you
• “Just a rat”, you are safe
– Ex: LOTR
• “Stirring” music when level nearly over (but can still die!)
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Vision
• The "look" of the game
• Concept art
• Broad strokes, not pixel
•
finished detail
Rough sketches of characters
or settings
- Paolo Piselli
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Vision Example
Concept Art
Movie
Touch
•
•
Not really “touch”, but physicality of games look and
feel – handling of game
– Ex: early animation characters did not move right –
Disney pioneered with physical attributes that felt
right, moved with weight
Contrast
–
–
–
–
–
Ex:
Ex:
Ex:
Ex:
Ex:
comic-book acrobatics in Smash Bros
bouncing vehicles in Mario Kart
realistic crashes in Mid-town Madness
super-players in Lego Soccer
realism in Madden (actually, guys 1.5 times faster)
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Interface
• Ideal is transparent
– Ex: LOTR BfME novel way when click
expands with choices
– Ex: Status can be in formation or
appearance (not health hit-points, say)
• Doesn’t have to be invisible
– Ex: racing game expects dash
– Ex: flight sim interface can look like cockpit
– Ex: less is more (small square more annoying
than framing with interface)
• Can enhance look and feel
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
•
•
•
•
Storytelling
No need of story? After all, supposed to be
interactive.
– “If you want to tell a story, write a book.”
– Bah. Consider “choose your own adventure”
Ex: Doom – two factions
1) Strong setting and backstory enhance game
2) “Story? We don’t need no stinking story!”
• Action takes care of itself
Interactive can help user create story
– Ex: Half-life
Stronger – want to suspend disbelief of user but
need to make them want to suspend
– Ex: Starwars merely some sword fights and vehicle
chases. Need to know who Luke is, why he’s in the
spaceship. Why the battle …
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Toolbox of Storytelling Techniques
• Best  not chunks of action with static
•
•
•
facts
Details revealed to audience – let them
figure it out
Get emotional involvement from audience
Storytellers knew tricks for creating good
stories long before Shakespeare – Game
Designers should employ
– Obstacles, Plot Points, Foreshadowing …
– (More next)
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Obstacles
• Old man runs to hero in inn.
on hill. You have to kill it.”
Says “Vampire
– Poor
• Old man enters inn.
Avoids hero.
Purchases crucifix from another. Mumbles
“you better have one if you are in these
parts.”
– Not great, but better. Has obstacle
• Viewer must find out himself/herself
• “Tricked” into level of acceptance not
obtained if just told, too artificial
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Foreshadowing
• A story depicts the intrusion of the world
on status quo
– Ex: AoE – settlement grows to large city
– Ex: Total Recall – construction worker spy
• Foreshadowing occurs early, before
intrusion, hints at what is to come
– Ex: AoE – small bandits come, fought off
– Ex: Total Recall – dream of spy
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Personalization
•
Novice author – Ex: save the world, because big
•
Need to add person reason so audience cares
•
– But not compelling, so only you can save it
– Still weak
– Ex: you have two hours to save the world versus you
have two hours to find your niece lost at sunset
– Ex: Luke told must save galaxy. Why? Drawn in by
personal (Princess Leia)
Careful not to make personal hook in backstory –
might skip
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Resistance
• Back of mind saying “it isn’t true”
– Need to pull them along
• Ex: Bruce Willis, drinking at dingy strip
club. Two suits say “you must save
president from terrorist.” Does he jump
up and get to work? No. Snarls “I’m
retired.” Takes another drink.
– We want him to change his mind. Rooting
for him before main character does.
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Plot Points (1 of 2)
•
•
•
Importance of confounding expectations
– Ex: Gandalf on quest to Mount Doom. Boring if that
is exactly what happens
• Gets killed early on (and comes back), not expected
Adventure games benefit most, but can do for
other games, too
Aristotle – reversal, discovery, calamity
– Ex: trying to save kid, causing her death (reversal)
– Ex: finding Swiss account number on victim
(discovery)
– Ex: bomb going off, killing hero (calamity)
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Plot Points (2 of 2)
•
•
•
•
•
Games, too.
– Ex: strategy game – find cliff so army built up won’t
work (reversal)
– Ex: tunnel for small commando force (discovery)
Whammo every 10 minutes, turn story in different
direction
– Big ones (“Luke, I am your father”) divide into levels
or acts
Movies - setup, conflict, resolution
– But games whole season (40 hours), not one movie
– Best if can integrate in game without cut-scenes
Early plot points deepen mystery, later clear it up
(not always completely)
Overarching structure, hierarchical in plot points
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Suspense
• Ex: Unbeatable foe (Gorgon, only beat by
lure to trap). With “save game” let hero
try. After 9 times, try something else.
– Death of lead character destroys illusion
• Instead, provide clues, suspense.
Bodies,
rotting, see NPC get eaten. Hear sounds.
Can see gorgon survive rock crash.
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Dialog
•
One picture worth a thousand words
•
Good dialog serves more than one purpose
•
Don’t tell what know, but also reveal
•
Surprise
– Don’t have needless dialog when visual will do
– Ex: telling about bomb. “How long?” Plenty of time
… smoke cigarette, call mom … don’t read War and
Peace. Reminds of mortality.
– “Do you expect me to talk?”
– “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die”
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Resolution
•
Should be:
•
Many examples of stories/games where above fails
– Hard won – no reward is satisfying if too easy (most
computer games not this)
– Not obvious – don’t want ending one been seeing for
10 hours (yet should still make sense looking back)
– Satisfying – usually morally (hero wins) but could be
aesthetically (tragedy)
– Consistent – with character, style development
– Achieve closure – resolve story
– Diablo 2 – defeat Diablo … then 60 seconds to end.
– Might and Magic 2 – long struggle, mystery. Very
end, control panel … 15 minutes to decode
‘’Fourscore and seven years …” Solved it, asteroid
missed, thank you and go home
– Ex: A Christmas Story – decoder ring drink Ovaltine
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
Change
• Stories set in interesting times
– No “Sir Gawain shops for bread.” Rather,
“marries hag, one week until green knight
chops head off”
– Sometimes, return to normal
• Inner change is often point of story
– No “Frodo lives in Shire with friends”,
rather “learns of evil, innocence to selfknowledge”
Based on Chapter 6, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris
What’s Next?
• Art (2d, 3d, audio)
• Architecture
• Wrap up
Ensuring Interesting Choices
•
Kinds of choices in gameplay can involve options:
•
•
•
•
First and Second most interesting
Third valid, but really only “chrome”
Fourth should be handled by AI
Fifth should seriously consider removing
1) Should sometimes be taken, sometimes not
2) Timing is critical and depends upon context
(upgrade armor or build more troops)
3) Makes little difference whether taken or not
4) Always worth taking (target nearest)
5) Never worth taking (remove armor, pay guy for
tapestry in Vici)
Based on Chapter 3, Game Architecture and Design, by Rollings and Morris